How long until the Bulls actually fully commit to a rebuild?

[League Circles]

Bottom line, "fully committing to a rebuild" has no meaning other than to tank, essentially. A LOT of posters that desperately want to tank were also fine with the contracts given to guys like Coby, Ayo, Smith, and even Patrick. That's incoherent. If you TRULY want to tank and assure a high draft pick, there's really only one way, and it's to follow the 1998-2000 Chicago Bulls. We had NOBODY.

All thing being relatively close to equal, yea of course we'll be better off in the long run with our pick next summer. And I don't think anyone, not even me, thinks we should "go all in" to compete for the play-in. But our competitiveness (or lack thereof) was largely determined before the season started by moves like signing Smith, trading for Giddey, and extending Patrick. People want there to be nice sharp lines between so-called win now moves and so-called future assets or investments. But it's never that way. Ostensibly, Giddey, Smith and Patrick are all here for the future, but none of them had to be, and all probably "help" us "win-now" also. Tanking is really a two steps back, one step forward kind of thing. In order to be bad enough that you insure a good draft pick, you generally have to sacrifice a different part of your future. The only place in the draft where I would say you are even likely, but still certainly not guaranteed to get a long-term high impact players like the top three picks. And to be that bad you have to be really really really bad, AND get "lucky".

A lot of this discussion really hinges around whether or not you think it's possible to maintain indefinitely a pleasing roster product. I think it is, but certainly difficult. I think most fans would disagree with me and genuinely believe that in order to be really good, you simply must be bad first and that after being really good, it is inevitable that you will be bad and so on and so forth with this sinusoidal model of team performance, which I don't think makes sense.

[League Circles]

\

Lol, you went from asserting 98-99% of references were to flag to move the goalposts ever so slightly to 51%.

In any event, the logic of your post is basically "it's hard to get a high draft pick, even if you tank, given lottery odds, so the Bulls shouldn't do it." But that logic really means teams should never try to rebuild through the draft, which is crazy, because the vast majority of NBA teams have no other real mechanism rebuild.

The draft is a crapshoot. Odds are low. It's still the best option. That's the nature of the beast when 32 teams are trying to win a single championship title each season.

Of course the draft is one piece in rebuilding. You just shouldn't purposely lose to move up. All kinds of solid players were drafted outside of the top 4 or 5.

The GM skill is in finding the gems within the draft. Any idiot can lose on purpose every year hoping the lottery hits them with the 1 "can't miss" guy (who still sometimes ends up a miss) at the top.

It depends what you mean by "purposely lose." The players shouldn't be giving half-effort and the coaches shouldn't be coaching to lose. But the idea that teams should not occasionally take a deliberate step back in terms of roster construction when they realize they've peaked with their current group is pretty obviously incorrect. It is an extremely traditional part of team-building across all major US sports.

And in this specific situation, it doesn't matter if occasionally great players are found later in the draft. The Bulls simply lose their pick if they get into the playoffs, so the debate whether to try to keep the pick at all or to lose it this season.

Further, while great players have been found all over the draft, it's statistically true that the higher up in the draft, the better chance you have of acquiring a really good player. If you could simply choose your own pick every year, you'd choose #1, for obvious reasons.

The problem is that taking a "deliberate step back" isn't often as obvious/straightforward as it sounds, and there is no such thing as a group - all FOs can do is sign or trade individual player contracts. Not only is it actually really hard to identify why you are playing as well or poorly as you are, but since basketball isn't baseball, the impact of adding or subtracting even just a player or two can have unpredictable consequences. It's very difficult to diagnose things like why the 07-08 Bulls were trash compared to the 06-07 team, or why Vuc is playing so much better this year than last, etc.

[jnrjr79]

Of course the draft is one piece in rebuilding. You just shouldn't purposely lose to move up. All kinds of solid players were drafted outside of the top 4 or 5.

The GM skill is in finding the gems within the draft. Any idiot can lose on purpose every year hoping the lottery hits them with the 1 "can't miss" guy (who still sometimes ends up a miss) at the top.

It depends what you mean by "purposely lose." The players shouldn't be giving half-effort and the coaches shouldn't be coaching to lose. But the idea that teams should not occasionally take a deliberate step back in terms of roster construction when they realize they've peaked with their current group is pretty obviously incorrect. It is an extremely traditional part of team-building across all major US sports.

And in this specific situation, it doesn't matter if occasionally great players are found later in the draft. The Bulls simply lose their pick if they get into the playoffs, so the debate whether to try to keep the pick at all or to lose it this season.

Further, while great players have been found all over the draft, it's statistically true that the higher up in the draft, the better chance you have of acquiring a really good player. If you could simply choose your own pick every year, you'd choose #1, for obvious reasons.

The problem is that taking a "deliberate step back" isn't often as obvious/straightforward as it sounds, and there is no such thing as a group - all FOs can do is sign or trade individual player contracts. Not only is it actually really hard to identify why you are playing as well or poorly as you are, but since basketball isn't baseball, the impact of adding or subtracting even just a player or two can have unpredictable consequences. It's very difficult to diagnose things like why the 07-08 Bulls were trash compared to the 06-07 team, or why Vuc is playing so much better this year than last, etc.

I don't really agree with this. I agree that there is an element of chemistry to basketball and that results can be somewhat unpredictable, but only within reason. The idea of "well, I'll trade these contracts, but who knows if these returning players might make me even better" is not really a thing. NBA teams constantly do stuff to get better or worse and it normally results in the intended outcome. Maybe not always, but normally.

And it's notable you cite only baseball in response and distinguish it as being more of an individual contributor thing. Teams rebuild all the time in football and hockey with similarly predictable results to basketball.

[League Circles]

It depends what you mean by "purposely lose." The players shouldn't be giving half-effort and the coaches shouldn't be coaching to lose. But the idea that teams should not occasionally take a deliberate step back in terms of roster construction when they realize they've peaked with their current group is pretty obviously incorrect. It is an extremely traditional part of team-building across all major US sports.

And in this specific situation, it doesn't matter if occasionally great players are found later in the draft. The Bulls simply lose their pick if they get into the playoffs, so the debate whether to try to keep the pick at all or to lose it this season.

Further, while great players have been found all over the draft, it's statistically true that the higher up in the draft, the better chance you have of acquiring a really good player. If you could simply choose your own pick every year, you'd choose #1, for obvious reasons.

The problem is that taking a "deliberate step back" isn't often as obvious/straightforward as it sounds, and there is no such thing as a group - all FOs can do is sign or trade individual player contracts. Not only is it actually really hard to identify why you are playing as well or poorly as you are, but since basketball isn't baseball, the impact of adding or subtracting even just a player or two can have unpredictable consequences. It's very difficult to diagnose things like why the 07-08 Bulls were trash compared to the 06-07 team, or why Vuc is playing so much better this year than last, etc.

I don't really agree with this. I agree that there is an element of chemistry to basketball and that results can be somewhat unpredictable, but only within reason. The idea of "well, I'll trade these contracts, but who knows if these returning players might make me even better" is not really a thing. NBA teams constantly do stuff to get better or worse and it normally results in the intended outcome. Maybe not always, but normally.

And it's notable you cite only baseball in response and distinguish it as being more of an individual contributor thing. Teams rebuild all the time in football and hockey with similarly predictable results to basketball.

The vast, vast majority of moves in all of these sports are intended to make teams better, but somehow a lot of those end up making them worse. Fwiw though, I do consider basketball inherently more difficult to predict than football. Football would be between basketball and baseball. Not sure about hockey.

For example, let's say we could trade Zach for a package that we think makes us worse. Even if it "works out", that's not really the intended outcome. The intended outcome is to win a title in a few years. So even if dumping Zach means we keep our pick, that pick has a HUGE CHANCE to be worse than Zach would be for the rest of his career, and then be out of the league.

[Stratmaster]

Of course the draft is one piece in rebuilding. You just shouldn't purposely lose to move up. All kinds of solid players were drafted outside of the top 4 or 5.

The GM skill is in finding the gems within the draft. Any idiot can lose on purpose every year hoping the lottery hits them with the 1 "can't miss" guy (who still sometimes ends up a miss) at the top.

It depends what you mean by "purposely lose." The players shouldn't be giving half-effort and the coaches shouldn't be coaching to lose. But the idea that teams should not occasionally take a deliberate step back in terms of roster construction when they realize they've peaked with their current group is pretty obviously incorrect. It is an extremely traditional part of team-building across all major US sports.

And in this specific situation, it doesn't matter if occasionally great players are found later in the draft. The Bulls simply lose their pick if they get into the playoffs, so the debate whether to try to keep the pick at all or to lose it this season.

Further, while great players have been found all over the draft, it's statistically true that the higher up in the draft, the better chance you have of acquiring a really good player. If you could simply choose your own pick every year, you'd choose #1, for obvious reasons.

The problem is that taking a "deliberate step back" isn't often as obvious/straightforward as it sounds, and there is no such thing as a group - all FOs can do is sign or trade individual player contracts. Not only is it actually really hard to identify why you are playing as well or poorly as you are, but since basketball isn't baseball, the impact of adding or subtracting even just a player or two can have unpredictable consequences. It's very difficult to diagnose things like why the 07-08 Bulls were trash compared to the 06-07 team, or why Vuc is playing so much better this year than last, etc.

I think DDR is a great example of the unpredictability of how one player will affect a team. Fantastic player, but requires a certain fit around him..

[Onibuh]

We should know by now that we care about being sold out. Always keep that in mind. I don't think "tanking" is the right way to do it. Go and find young players that can help you. Have some faith in development and give them time to improve.

If you trade Vuc, you will lose more games but you still need another big. You will need one now, next season and even after that when he will be gone for sure.
If you trade Zach in that same season, you are looking to replace 2 positions going forward and won't have a player like him soon. Ideally you get a player better than him + Buzelis. Zach has shown improvement and is willing to play more D and pass the ball.
How do you get a player better than him? We tried to tank, we failed with it and ended up with nothing to show for. We wasted a 4th overall pick on a solid starter. We need to add to what we have, need to get rid of the losing mentality and start to win games. No player of worth is interested to join this team. That won't change if we are not showing that we are willing and ready to win games.

DDR just wasn't a fit and not that #1 option to win titles.

[League Circles]

As far as I'm concerned we should try to see who the best player is that we can possibly trade for while keeping Zach and Buzelis, and consider making that talented trio our "core" with the target of contending in 2026-27.

So that might mean a package something including several from among:

Coby
Ayo
Vuc
Patrick
Smith
Ball
Carter
Giddey
Our pick (yes, we should consider trading our conditionally owed pick depending on the details)

I gotta think that Coby, Giddey, and our pick plus fillers is a strong trade package.

[Infinity2152]

The other point is building a team is about MUCH more than drafting a 1A. Lebron got drafted to Cleveland and left without winning because the team sucked. Luka doesn't have a ring. Philly, OKC added superstars to their multiple high draft picks. Portland drafted Lillard, where's the payoff? When you decimate your team, deliberately make it as bad as possible to tank, you're adding that high level rookie to a crap squad. By the time that team is good, that star is off their rookie contracts. High level guys like Lebron, KD, Harden, Brunson, Westbrook, Lillard, PG13, Kawhi move every year. Lucking up in the draft is NOT the only way to get a star, SGA wasn't even drafted by OKC. Rockets been at the bottom for years, tons of young talent. Detroit, tons of young talent, high draft picks. Most teams will never have dynasties like the Spurs and Warriors. They drafted multiple Hall of Famers in a short period and had Pop and a Pop disciple as coaches

We'd have to be bad for years to actually save this pick. It's a pure guessing game as to whether our pick would be higher in 2026 than 2025. Purely random if our pick is higher in either year, even if we have the same exact record. Then will the players available to us to draft in 2025 be better than the players available to draft in 2026? That's also random, picks outside the top 2 vary wildly in who's actually drafted. We drafted Matas at 11, he was projected top 5 all the way up to the draft. Of course every team wants a higher draft pick. But the two top teams in the league right now, Nuggets and Celtics, neither are at the top because they drafted #1. Nobody in this draft, not even Flagg, is giving Lebron or Wemby vibes.

Building a solid team is the game, drafting a high rookie is a side quest. Not saying there aren't times to tank. Works best with solid/great teams that lose some pieces to injury and have a way worse record than expected, so that high rookie joins a solid team. The NBA changes too fast to be building 4-5 years in advance, salary cap catches up to all good teams. Teams need to really be constantly improving. If you're a mid team, don't drop to the bottom. Figure a way to move up.

[jnrjr79]

The other point is building a team is about MUCH more than drafting a 1A. Lebron got drafted to Cleveland and left without winning because the team sucked. Luka doesn't have a ring. Philly, OKC added superstars to their multiple high draft picks. Portland drafted Lillard, where's the payoff? When you decimate your team, deliberately make it as bad as possible to tank, you're adding that high level rookie to a crap squad. By the time that team is good, that star is off their rookie contracts. High level guys like Lebron, KD, Harden, Brunson, Westbrook, Lillard, PG13, Kawhi move every year. Lucking up in the draft is NOT the only way to get a star, SGA wasn't even drafted by OKC. Rockets been at the bottom for years, tons of young talent. Detroit, tons of young talent, high draft picks. Most teams will never have dynasties like the Spurs and Warriors. They drafted multiple Hall of Famers in a short period and had Pop and a Pop disciple as coaches

We'd have to be bad for years to actually save this pick. It's a pure guessing game as to whether our pick would be higher in 2026 than 2025. Purely random if our pick is higher in either year, even if we have the same exact record. Then will the players available to us to draft in 2025 be better than the players available to draft in 2026? That's also random, picks outside the top 2 vary wildly in who's actually drafted. We drafted Matas at 11, he was projected top 5 all the way up to the draft. Of course every team wants a higher draft pick. But the two top teams in the league right now, Nuggets and Celtics, neither are at the top because they drafted #1. Nobody in this draft, not even Flagg, is giving Lebron or Wemby vibes.

Building a solid team is the game, drafting a high rookie is a side quest. Not saying there aren't times to tank. Works best with solid/great teams that lose some pieces to injury and have a way worse record than expected, so that high rookie joins a solid team. The NBA changes too fast to be building 4-5 years in advance, salary cap catches up to all good teams. Teams need to really be constantly improving. If you're a mid team, don't drop to the bottom. Figure a way to move up.

LeBron's Cleveland teams won 66 and 61 games in his last two seasons there before department for Miami. The 2nd to last year, they were in the conference finals. That team did not "suck." They sure did the year after he left, though. 19 wins!

[drosestruts]

I do agree that there's no saviors any more.

Parity is up. You can have a great player and still suck.

You can have multiple great players and suck (what's up Philly).


I do think one of the bigger disconnects is our desire to trade our veteran players, and this desire to gain future draft capitol.

No one is giving 1st round picks for Vuc or Craig and LaVine for often discussed reasons is difficult to trade.

Our best trade asset if we wanted future 1st round picks is probably Coby.

And honestly - if we look to keep Giddey, Zach, Ball and Ayo it's easy to form a case that trading Coby now while his value is high (with that extra low-cost year) is the best move we could make.

It's not a full rebuild or a tank.

But I do think it gets us those future draft assets, which we currently lack, while allowing us to continue on with our current incremental improvements.

I don't think we can get bad enough for a top pick. But we can give ourselves more chances in the future.

[kodo]

As far as I'm concerned we should try to see who the best player is that we can possibly trade for while keeping Zach and Buzelis, and consider making that talented trio our "core" with the target of contending in 2026-27.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

[Infinity2152]

The other point is building a team is about MUCH more than drafting a 1A. Lebron got drafted to Cleveland and left without winning because the team sucked. Luka doesn't have a ring. Philly, OKC added superstars to their multiple high draft picks. Portland drafted Lillard, where's the payoff? When you decimate your team, deliberately make it as bad as possible to tank, you're adding that high level rookie to a crap squad. By the time that team is good, that star is off their rookie contracts. High level guys like Lebron, KD, Harden, Brunson, Westbrook, Lillard, PG13, Kawhi move every year. Lucking up in the draft is NOT the only way to get a star, SGA wasn't even drafted by OKC. Rockets been at the bottom for years, tons of young talent. Detroit, tons of young talent, high draft picks. Most teams will never have dynasties like the Spurs and Warriors. They drafted multiple Hall of Famers in a short period and had Pop and a Pop disciple as coaches

We'd have to be bad for years to actually save this pick. It's a pure guessing game as to whether our pick would be higher in 2026 than 2025. Purely random if our pick is higher in either year, even if we have the same exact record. Then will the players available to us to draft in 2025 be better than the players available to draft in 2026? That's also random, picks outside the top 2 vary wildly in who's actually drafted. We drafted Matas at 11, he was projected top 5 all the way up to the draft. Of course every team wants a higher draft pick. But the two top teams in the league right now, Nuggets and Celtics, neither are at the top because they drafted #1. Nobody in this draft, not even Flagg, is giving Lebron or Wemby vibes.

Building a solid team is the game, drafting a high rookie is a side quest. Not saying there aren't times to tank. Works best with solid/great teams that lose some pieces to injury and have a way worse record than expected, so that high rookie joins a solid team. The NBA changes too fast to be building 4-5 years in advance, salary cap catches up to all good teams. Teams need to really be constantly improving. If you're a mid team, don't drop to the bottom. Figure a way to move up.

LeBron's Cleveland teams won 66 and 61 games in his last two seasons there before department for Miami. The 2nd to last year, they were in the conference finals. That team did not "suck." They sure did the year after he left, though. 19 wins!

The team sucked. They got the number 1 pick! Lebron was a beast. That's like saying Philly didn't suck when AI dragged them to the Finals, lol. 2003 Cavs featured Carlos Boozer, Darius Miles, Ricky Davis, Lebron, Ilgauskas with Kapone, Kevin Ollie, Mateen Cleaves, Dajuan Wagner. Outside of Lebron, that's a bad team. The 2005 and the 2006 team you're talking about: Eric Snow, Larry Hughes, Lebron, Drew Gooden, Ilgauskas. You saying if Lebron is not on that team that's not a bottom team? He didn't leave a weak ass team?

[League Circles]

As far as I'm concerned we should try to see who the best player is that we can possibly trade for while keeping Zach and Buzelis, and consider making that talented trio our "core" with the target of contending in 2026-27.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

[jnrjr79]

The other point is building a team is about MUCH more than drafting a 1A. Lebron got drafted to Cleveland and left without winning because the team sucked. Luka doesn't have a ring. Philly, OKC added superstars to their multiple high draft picks. Portland drafted Lillard, where's the payoff? When you decimate your team, deliberately make it as bad as possible to tank, you're adding that high level rookie to a crap squad. By the time that team is good, that star is off their rookie contracts. High level guys like Lebron, KD, Harden, Brunson, Westbrook, Lillard, PG13, Kawhi move every year. Lucking up in the draft is NOT the only way to get a star, SGA wasn't even drafted by OKC. Rockets been at the bottom for years, tons of young talent. Detroit, tons of young talent, high draft picks. Most teams will never have dynasties like the Spurs and Warriors. They drafted multiple Hall of Famers in a short period and had Pop and a Pop disciple as coaches

We'd have to be bad for years to actually save this pick. It's a pure guessing game as to whether our pick would be higher in 2026 than 2025. Purely random if our pick is higher in either year, even if we have the same exact record. Then will the players available to us to draft in 2025 be better than the players available to draft in 2026? That's also random, picks outside the top 2 vary wildly in who's actually drafted. We drafted Matas at 11, he was projected top 5 all the way up to the draft. Of course every team wants a higher draft pick. But the two top teams in the league right now, Nuggets and Celtics, neither are at the top because they drafted #1. Nobody in this draft, not even Flagg, is giving Lebron or Wemby vibes.

Building a solid team is the game, drafting a high rookie is a side quest. Not saying there aren't times to tank. Works best with solid/great teams that lose some pieces to injury and have a way worse record than expected, so that high rookie joins a solid team. The NBA changes too fast to be building 4-5 years in advance, salary cap catches up to all good teams. Teams need to really be constantly improving. If you're a mid team, don't drop to the bottom. Figure a way to move up.

LeBron's Cleveland teams won 66 and 61 games in his last two seasons there before department for Miami. The 2nd to last year, they were in the conference finals. That team did not "suck." They sure did the year after he left, though. 19 wins!

The team sucked. They got the number 1 pick! Lebron was a beast. That's like saying Philly didn't suck when AI dragged them to the Finals, lol. 2003 Cavs featured Carlos Boozer, Darius Miles, Ricky Davis, Lebron, Ilgauskas with Kapone, Kevin Ollie, Mateen Cleaves, Dajuan Wagner. Outside of Lebron, that's a bad team. The 2005 and the 2006 team you're talking about: Eric Snow, Larry Hughes, Lebron, Drew Gooden, Ilgauskas. You saying if Lebron is not on that team that's not a bottom team? He didn't leave a weak ass team?

I'm not sure what you're on about here. No 66-win team "sucks" and you're not even talking about the right years here.

[jnrjr79]

As far as I'm concerned we should try to see who the best player is that we can possibly trade for while keeping Zach and Buzelis, and consider making that talented trio our "core" with the target of contending in 2026-27.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

Honest question: do you find the recent Bulls to be enjoyable to follow these days when they have been a play-in, but not playoff, team?

I do not enjoy watching the Bulls make the 9 or 10 seed and then get bounced before even making the first round, and I enjoy it *less* than if they were even worse, because finishing in that position severely limits their ability to improve.

[Infinity2152]

As far as I'm concerned we should try to see who the best player is that we can possibly trade for while keeping Zach and Buzelis, and consider making that talented trio our "core" with the target of contending in 2026-27.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

Agree 100%. For those who ever played sports, imagine you're a young player (say Matas) on a pro team. Excited to start the season, ready to make your mark. Every day, media and fans are talking about your team should tank. You're ok, management has your back. Nope, they immediately trade off your All-star vets (I mean super likeable, capable guys that take over) and deliberately take back trash and future picks. Making every effort it appears to make sure you lose as much as possible. And you do, you end up losing 85% of your games, but hey, you got a lot of minutes. They draft a rookie at 3 to take your position. There were no vets all year to teach you anything, no team captains to help chemistry, just constant losing, spurred on by management. Talking about trading a 23 year old a few months after extending him. We have like 10 young players on this team living this life. Wasting the youth, development and cheap contracts we already have for a future prospect. Winning is habit forming, so is losing.

[drosestruts]

As far as I'm concerned we should try to see who the best player is that we can possibly trade for while keeping Zach and Buzelis, and consider making that talented trio our "core" with the target of contending in 2026-27.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

I think it's way worse than that.

Carmelo Anthony is a Hall of Fame player.

The Pistons have been one of the worst teams in the NBA for 5 years in a row.

Their best player from all that losing is Cade Cunningham. His high usage (31%) helps him fill up the stat sheet - 23 points 7 rebounds and 9 assists. But he's doing so on awful efficiency 54% TS% and has never had a positive On Court +/- in his entire career. And he's locked in to a HUGE. extension.

This is what tanking gets you. 5 years. 5 years of tanking and Detroit is currently not even in the play-in

[League Circles]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

Honest question: do you find the recent Bulls to be enjoyable to follow these days when they have been a play-in, but not playoff, team?

I do not enjoy watching the Bulls make the 9 or 10 seed and then get bounced before even making the first round, and I enjoy it *less* than if they were even worse, because finishing in that position severely limits their ability to improve.

If they're in the hunt for the playoffs for most of the season, and have young talented players, which has been the case for the last 3+ seasons, I enjoy it enough to have it in my entertainment toolbox. It exists as part of my life that is an enjoyable diversion. If they are a bottom 5 team, without a Victor W type talent already on the roster, they cease to be that at all. I really disagree with the notion that being mediocre instead of bad "severely" limits their ability to improve. There are never more than 5 good long term players in a draft, and usually one or two of them are still available in the middle of the first round. In a sense it's actually better to be a 500 team than like a 50 win team that's capped out with 30+ year olds. THAT is actually what I'd call nba hell. Old enough and capped out enough to not be able to improve much, but not good enough to contend, and not bad enough to break up.

[Infinity2152]

Lot of times, injuries, team construction, and coaching play more into wins/losses than talent level. I'd say the Bulls actual talent level, with a healthy Ball and Derozan, was probably superior to the Heat teams of the last few years, and many other teams that have done better than us. The Lavine/Derozan/Vuc combo was extremely ill fitting, but imagine if just one had been replaced by an equivalent player that was very good defensively. We have a stockpile of young players and basically 2-3 vets. I like the overall talent of our young guys with White, Williams, Matas, Ayo, Giddey, Smith and now even Terry and Phillips. It looks bad because no one here believes in our top 2 players, but believe me, the Bulls will have MANY options on which way they go this summer. Think Zach is the only piece that would be difficult at all to trade this summer, and that's purely salary matching. We're going to get assets back. We're not nearly as bad off as people are making us out to be, our future is not riding on this draft pick.

Here's an optimistic way to look at it. We have 5-6 young players that are probably 6th man level to low level starter. All are relatively cheap this year except Pat, all signed thru next year except Giddey. Both of the vets have undoubtedly improved their trade value. Matas is looking good. Giddey is playing good enough to have some hope, but not so good as to get rookie max. Even Ball looks like he may be back at least somewhat, and that's great on more than just a basketball level. Smith looks like a keeper. Guys still look like they're having fun, staying upbeat amidst all the trade talk. Kind of ideal start to the season, actually.

[League Circles]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

I think it's way worse than that.

Carmelo Anthony is a Hall of Fame player.

The Pistons have been one of the worst teams in the NBA for 5 years in a row.

Their best player from all that losing is Cade Cunningham. His high usage (31%) helps him fill up the stat sheet - 23 points 7 rebounds and 9 assists. But he's doing so on awful efficiency 54% TS% and has never had a positive On Court +/- in his entire career. And he's locked in to a HUGE. extension.

This is what tanking gets you. 5 years. 5 years of tanking and Detroit is currently not even in the play-in

Exactly, I was trying to be generous. And yeah, Melo might be a hall of fame player, but I don't think anyone would argue that he was ever going to be the man on a championship team. Just not good enough. But yeah Cade is a great example. He's their building block, but is it likely that he'll ever be a top 5 nba player? No, it's not.